A taxonomy-based understanding of community flood resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reducing disaster risk and enhancing resilience are major global societal challenges. To inform this challenge, understanding resilience at the community level is especially important because the impact of disasters and the potential for resilient development are particularly acute at this scale. The last decade has seen a surge in efforts in measuring resilience to a variety of hazards, yet measurement frameworks lack empirical validation and widespread application. To bridge this information gap, we provide analysis into an unprecedented dataset: a standardized, empirically validated approach to community flood resilience measurement, applied in over 290 communities across 20 developing countries. The analysis is based on the Flood Resilience Measurement for Communities (FRMC) framework and tool designed to provide a holistic approach to measuring community flood resilience and to support implementation of resilience-strengthening interventions. Our analysis starts with an assessment of the validity and reliability of the data and leads into querying whether and how to organize the wealth of information of community contexts into a discrete set of clusters. Although we appreciate that fostering resilience has to be strongly context-aware, we also present a taxonomy related to flood risk and socioeconomic community characteristics, which, using multinomial and random forest methods, leads us to identifying five distinct community clusters based on their resilience profiles and capital scores. This clustering taxonomy provides a way to group communities by similarities and differences between absolute and distributional resilience levels and socioeconomic community characteristics. These clusters may serve as a resource for further examining efforts for building resilience, analyzing resilience dynamics over time, and informing policy options across the world.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".